The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-02-24


over all Offices save the legislative, and there
Was. therefore, at least, some reason to doubt
whether it wise that they alone should
WELD power of such great magnitude. II is, at
all events, very evident that the makers OF our
Constitution deemed it wise to limit the power
of the courts by investing the General Assembly
with authority to decide all contests involving
the title to the two principal executive offices OF
the State
There are certainly plausible, il not convinc-
ing, reasons for q distribution Of the high power
OF determining titles to Office. since. as has been
shown if it is left wholly in the courts they are
invested with the highest power in the govern
ment 1t is one that some have not hesitated
to affirm is autocratc, indeed. claiming very
much for the courts to aspire that they possess
the supreme power to decide all contests invoiv-
ing titles to Office. and it is evident that the
trainers of the Constitution, regarding it as bet
ter to divide the power and limit the authority
of the courts. placed all contests for the chief
executive Offices under the jurisdiction of the
Legislature. If it was not intended to take con-
tests involving the title to the Offices from the
judiciary there would have been necessity
for any specific provision upon the subject and
it cannot be inferred that the trainers OF SO
solemn an instrument az the Constitution have
done so vain and fruitless thing But the pro-
vision is in the Constitution, and it is there
for reason. Because it was deemed wise to
divide the power it was written. Contested
elections for Governor and Lieutenantgoyernor
shall be determined by the General Assembly"
The meaning of the word contested is neither
doubtful nor obscure, as my Brother Nlblaek has
shown, and as anyone may see by turning to the
the Constitution by assigning to the words en-
ployed their usual meaning Chief-justice Mar
shall said: "The trainers OF the Constitution
and the people who adopted it must be under
sense and to have intended what they have said"
(Gibbon vs. Ogden, Wheat, 188 Judge Cooley
says: What court has to do is to declare the
law as it is written" lCooley's Constitution
Law, 81
The Constitution vests in the General Assem-
bly, sole and supreme jurisdiction over all dis
putes, controversies or questions, whatsoever
form or posture they may assume, arising out of
a contest for the Office of Governor Lieuteu
ant governor. The authority is to decide all
phases of the controversy, not some parts or
parcel of it. This is the plain import of tine Ian
guage employed neither clouded by doubt nor
obscured by uncertainty. 1t is a settled princi-
pie that where jurisdiction OF q subject is con-
ferred upon any tribunal it has jurisdiction of
every part of it, and of every question of law or
of fact that can possibly arise from the begin
ming to the end of the controversy. Once iuris-
diction attaches, it exists for all purposes all
questions are within the authority of the tr
bunal, and no other tribunal in the world has q
right to interfere with its decision. except where
there is right to renew or appeal. The rule
rests on solid foundation, for if one tribunal
might decide one part of a controversy and an
other some other part, there would be q hope
less confusion that no power could clear away
and disastrous conflict that tribunal could
reconcile.
If it were conceded that the power to hear and
determine contests involving the title to the of
fee of Lieutenant-governor purely judi
cial power. it would not impair the force of the
constitutional provision referred TO, for it can
not be doubted that the people in their sover-
eign capacity, and as the source of all power
may invest the Legislature with pure judicial
power They have. indeed done SO in more in
stances than 1t is a mistake to assume
-
people. for the peoples power is primary, origi-
nal, inherent and supreme Constitutions limit,
but they do not create the power of the people.
The Constitution is the creature not the creator,
of the peoples power. In many instances pow
ers of judicial nature are conferred upon the
| Legislature, and it has always been held that
| where such power is conferred 1t is exclusive
| and supreme. No other tribunal can share in
| Mahoney, Mich, 1892; State vs.. More. 20 Kan.
| 551; Walter Toml,nson, Ibid. 692 Dalton vs.
State, 43 Ohio State. I52; Smith vs. Myers, and
cases cited in New England Reporter 692.l
A high tribunal has been established by tine
Constitution for the trial of contests involving
| the title to the Offices OF Governor aud Lieu
| tenant governor That tribunal has all author
!, ity on the subject, or it has none. 1t is mol
| possible to assume that it may decide one ques
| ton but not all, without contravening the long
esta blished rule that jurisdiction over the sub
ject is jurisdiction over every question that car
| arise. The nigh tribunal provided by the Con-
stitution is the special one to which ali ques-
| lions arising in disputed contest or contro
| versy involving the title to either of the execu
tive officers must be submitted. Where exclus
| sive authority is vested in special tribunal
courts have no jurisdiction to control super
| wise review its decisions. In Fawcett VS.
| Wright. 40 Texas, 203 it was said, in speaking
of judicial power: ITO decide the result of ar
election is question Of different character. i
is part of the process Of political organization
and not question Of private right (Hansel
man vs. Reiris, Al Pennsylvania State Report
o. 396, and see Asbury vs.. Beares, Texas, o
469; Baker vs. Chisholm, Texas, 1877
Walker vs.. Tarrans County. 20 Texas. p. 6
Where the law has provided mode O
deciding cases of contested elections designe
to be final, the courts have no authority to ad
iudicate such cases other than such as the la,
gives them. Goldman VS.. McGowan. Metcf.
Kentucky. 533: Grier VS.. Schackelford,
BIerord, 400; Skerrett's case: Brightly Election
Cases, 800; Ewnge vs.. Filly. 43 Pennsylvania
Rogers vs.. Johns, 40 Texas 239 It was decide
in the case of the State Harmon. 81 Ohi
State, p. $50, that ''the authority conferred o
the Senate to try the contested elections is not
judicial power within the meaning of the Cons;
tuition" In the State VS.. NARROW, Is Ohio State
D. ia a similar principle was declared, tn
Court saying: Jurisdiction being thus special
conferred upon other tribunals, and the mode
its exercise prescribed 1t cannot be inferre
, that it was intended by the Constitution to
! differently exercised by proceeding in quo wa
: ranto. as at common law, or by the Supreme
district courts. under a mere general grant
jurisdiction in quo warranto" The Constit'
t ton of Arkansas contains this pr
/ vision: Contested elections shall lik
, wise be determined by both hous,
. of the General Assembly in such manner
Q now, or may hereafter be, prescribed by law
| and the Supreme Court OF that State held that
q controversy between claimants to the Office
. | Governor must be determined by the Leeisl
ture, the court saying: under this Constit
: ton the determination of the question
. | whether a person exercising the Office of Cove
q nor has been duly elected or not. is vested .
Q clusivelv in the General Assembly of the Stat
: and neither this nor any other court has jur
e dction to try suit in relation to such contes
) be the mode or form whatit may, whether as q